Protectionism dressed up as concern for worker's rights, the environment

The Detroit Free Press reports on new terms of trade set by America which require that Panama and Peru "...maintain and enforce five basic international labor standards: freedom of association for workers, the right to collective bargaining, and eliminating forced labor, child labor and discrimination in employment." They must also "adhere to environmental protection standards in their manufacturing."

Next in line for this treatment is Korea - but will such terms apply to China? Don't expect too much, Motown: remember Vice Premier Wu Yi's warning two days ago - "Attempts to politicize trade issues should be resisted." Wait till China's car industry really gets going.

Meanwhile, let's see what transpires in next week's resumption of the Strategic Economic Dialogue talks between the US and China, for which Wu Yi's Wall Street Journal essay on May 18 is an advance keynote-setter. Since she'll also be representing the Chinese side there, I don't expect much to be decided in America's favour.

Quick fix or cold turkey?

Alan Greenspan seems to think relaxing rules on immigration will help America. I think this is short-sighted.

If it's about keeping down wage costs, remember that low-paid workers also claim on a range of social benefits, and the people they are undercutting even more so. The last thing a country needs is a hereditary class of long-term unemployed.

If it's about skill shortages, highly-skilled foreign workers are getting harder to find: as emerging economies develop, they want the same people. My brother in America notes that over the years, his university has attracted fewer foreign mathematicians for this reason.

The quick-fix approach is not a lasting solution. Like the UK, America needs to improve education and vocational training. If times get tough and foreign workers go home, the USA's dependence on them could result in economic "cold turkey".

Chinese business can suffer, too

An article in WTOP news says that some areas of Chinese industry are surprisingly vulnerable to the currency exchange rate:

A rise of 10 percent in the yuan could lead to the loss of 5.5 million jobs in China, according to a report by the Chinese central bank. It said companies hardest hit would be those that make textiles, furniture, shoes and toys for export.

"If the yuan rises by another 5 percent, our profits will be totally wiped out," said Li Shaoxiong, deputy general manager of the Fujian Ala Shoe Co., which sold half its 2006 output of 6 million pairs of athletic shoes to American retailers.

Beijing is counting on such labor-intensive light manufacturers to create millions of new jobs. Even though its bustling economy is expected to grow by more than 10 percent this year, a big share of that is in heavier manufacturing and other industries that create fewer jobs.

Perhaps China will take the view that it can tolerate a rise in foreign-trade-related unemployment while it continues to amass capital; as the East gets richer, it will eventually generate its own demand for the products of light industry.

America's debt economy

As part of a longer item explaining why China is becoming the world's most important economy, Puru Saxena crisply summarises America's position:

"...the U.S. is the largest debtor nation the world has ever seen, its debt to GDP ratio is over 400%, it has a negative personal savings rate, its currency is overvalued and its society is heavily dependent on consuming cheap, imported goods."

If you, personally, owed 4 times your annual income and were now supplementing your income by further borrowing ("negative savings rate"), you'd look for debt counselling.

Add this to Jim Willie's comments about the export of jobs, and you can see why The Mogambo Guru is raving in his latest letter.

Unemployment - Permanent

Here's a stark view on unemployment from Jim Willie CB, "The Golden Jackass" (I've bold-typed key phrases):

"LABOR ABSOLUTE DISADVANTAGE

"Much hubbub has been made of "comparative advantage" and how the United States benefits from round after round of creative destruction. The hollow message has that in free trade, both sides win, and where a job is lost, new jobs are created. Few if any advantages can be identified in the present framework, whereby lost jobs seem to be replaced mainly by debts inside the USA. Economists badly misinterpret the labor market here in the USA. They incorrectly label the delay in domestic job creation as "short-run friction," when the entire business cycle clearly has been altered, perhaps permanently broken. David Ricardo's doctrines, outlined in 1817, are misunderstood. The US has an absolute disadvantage on labor costs, across the board, which affects manufacturing, service, and more. His principles are discussed in today's light in the May issue, and shown why wealth is lost in the USA and gained abroad.

"As the work of John Maynard Keynes has been misapplied on federal stimulus, so now the work of David Ricardo is being misinterpreted on exported labor. Expect the entire topic of job export and its misconstrued benefits to become a raging explosive issue."

British readers might ask, how is it different in the UK? And where is the sleuth of British bears, growling their warnings?